Paul Libbrecht wrote: > Wouldn't this be easily written in WSDL or WADL? > I believe it would be useful. > > For WSDL, It'd be WSDL 2, not WSDL 1 (which almost could only do soap). >
There has been a lot of criticism about WADL (e.g, [1]) as a way of putting RPC-ishness into something that should not be RPC-ish. So I would prefer to follow the "hypermedia way" as ATOM does. Nevertheless, WADL is useful for people who want to auto generate their strongly-coupled clients so it is indeed an option to expose. I still have to dig into it. RESTlet seems to support it out of the box. We can expose it somewhere like /wadl and link this URI in the previous cited "service document" -Fabio [1] http://bitworking.org/news/193/Do-we-need-WADL _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
